The main objectives of the RTI Act are – To promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and
To set up a practical regime for giving citizens access to information that is under the control of public authorities.
RTI Act 2005 was introduced to make the government machinery transparent and enhanced the accountability for good governance.
Right to Information and has been given the status of a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Article 19 (1) under which every citizen has freedom of speech and expression and have the right to know how the government works, what role does it play, what are its functions and so on.
The Act confers right to the citizens to know as to how the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the Government.
Right to Information Act empowers every citizen to seek any information, take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records, and take certified samples of material.
DRDO although governed by Indian constitution and draw salary from central government funds.
But decisions are autonomous without accountability. They all are self style generals, they have own rules and rule implantations in own terms & conditions, but when succumbed to injury look for RM for protection and ask protection in the name of secrecy.
Like when an RTI revealed that induction of Grade Pay – Rs 4800 without approval of finance ministry now question of recovery of Rs 24 Cr is big crisis for DRDO, several court cases are facing by DRDO, almost 665 technical officers are busy to tackle the recovery issue.
DRDO management to hide their irresponsible act, making arrangements for reassessment for these technical officers. Please imagine the money involvement and man hour wastage.
The present Honorable Defence Minister has tried his level best and convinced DRDO officers/ employees to fall in the line and follow the constitutional provisions.
Honorable Defence Minister has take prompt action as per rule:-
Not granted extension to Dr V K Sarswat
Suspended Dr Arun Kumar, DOP two hours before his retirement day.
Charge sheeted to Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa just after retirement.
Node to enquiry for Dr W Selvamurthy, Ex CC R&D, Ph D in Yoga, Ms S Geetha, Ms Swati Srivastva, Mrs T Chandra banu, Scientist ‘F’
Charge Sheeted Dr A K Tyagi, ex CPIO, DRDO Hqr
Protected whistle blower Sh Prakash Singh, Senior Admin Officer-I
These well known decisions are in the right direction and has encourage the common people to identify incompetent, corrupt official , non performers etc of DRDO Labs across the India. So this cancer of corruption, nepotism, casteism can be treated in first stage.
DRDO has made it mockery of RTI Act – 2005. There are several examples in CIC decision; “ The Commission has taken a consistent view that notwithstanding the fact that DRDO is an exempted organization, this exemption applies only in respect of scientific/technical matters and not in respect of establishment matters.”
And best part is this that after CIC stands, DRDO went Honorable High Court for wasting precious poor tax payer’s money. Common man cannot digest who give power to these corrupt officers for saving their own skin they are using public money.
In case of DMSRDE, DRDO Lab Kanpur, some RTI were placed to expose the corrupt practices following in the Lab. As usual practice of RTI cell DRDO all were denied and after thoroughly and specifically made first appeal force to think first appellate authority for provide requested informations.
RTI cell DRDO intends to disclose informations. However, the RTI cell at Lab level put the sundry things under schedule-II exemptions. DRDO has protected its corrupt officials under exemption clause in the name of secrecy.
Please find enclosed copy of FAX addressed to Director, DMSRDE, KANPUR Letter No RTI/02/2091 /F /2013/0139.0140,0141,0142,0144 dated 27th September 2013 signed by Sh Bishan Singh, Astt. Director, RTI Cell, For First Appellate Authority.
ToShri Avinash ChanderScientific Advisor to Raksha MantriDirector General Research & DevelopmentSecretary, Defence R&DDRDO, Ministry of DefenceDRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Subject: Effect of RTI Act 2005
Withdrawn of Tuglaki Farman/Talibani Fatwa by Tuglaki/Talibani Director Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
You will be surprised to know that under your regime in 21st Century in which India is going from developing to developed country with all efforts of honest and hardworking Indians. However there are some ineligible and corrupt officers managed to get the chair of Director. One of them in this category is Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. He is stigma on DRDO as he dragged the DMSRDE in condition which is un repairable. He is very poor administrator, manager & Scientist.
There are more than 15 parking shades in DMSRDE,Kanpur made of bricks & concrete roofs in all over DMSRDE as DMSRDE premises is spread over 45 Acres area. Everything was running as such but all of sudden Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE gets impulse which changed his state of mind and he issued an Order dated AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 regarding Parking of Vehicles by Officers & Employees of DMSRDE. He issued order “All officers & employees of establishments are ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shade near CSD Canteen Building“.
This create panic (hurry-skurry) among officers & employees as these two shades were insufficient to park all vehicles of DMSRDE. Handicapped officers & employees face too much difficulty by Tuglaki Farman of Dr. Saxena. In these two shades only 20 cars could be parked, while there are 60 cars, 200 two wheeler & 100 bicycles with officers & employees of DMSRDE.
This Talibani Order & Tuglaki Farman forces me to file an application under RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. The immediate effect of this RTI took place on Dr. A.K. Saxena. He called Group/Division Head meeting on 07 October 2013 at 11:30 to 13:00 hrs.
Dr. A.K. Saxena told to officers present that an RTI has been filed on issue of Parking of vehicles in two newly constructed shades as ordered by order dated 01 October 2013. Thereby I have decided to withdraw my orders dated 01 October 2013 and now status quo will be maintained. All officers & employees can park their vehicles as such before issue of this order.
He also decided in meeting that he will dismantle these two shades as designs of these are not proper. Sir you can see how my RTI forces your Director to change decision with in one day. It means his order was illegal, improper and against welfare of official of DMSRDE. Similarly Dr. Saxena is issuing Tuglaki Farman daily and changing them very frequently.
Dr. A.K. Saxena having some vested interest in Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. It is matter of investigation to find out connection between Gupta Construction & Dr. A.K. Saxena. Please direct your vigilance director to explore the facts or wait for further expose of Dr. A.K. Saxena’s act and deeds. These two shades should be constructed either by MES or CCE (R&D) but due to vested interest Dr. Saxena issued orders to M/s Gupta Constructions to erect this shade by purchasing raw material to erect the shade by issuing supply order to M/s Gupta Constructions. This whole construction was illegal and smacks corruption in the matter. Thereby Dr. Saxena is feeing disconcertment due to expose of his corruption and illegal construction with in DMSRDE by misusing his powers.
Now Dr. A.K. Saxena decided in Group Head meeting that he will dismantle these shades, it establish & indicates Dr. Saxena wants to destroy the evidences & tempering with files & documents related to purchase of materials for these shades by Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE. I am submitting you the photographs of these two shades recently constructed illegally by Director, DMSRDE as for this work he was not authorize and empowered. Depute an enquiry team to DMSRDE, Kanpur for inspection of this illegal construction carried out by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. So that his corrupt practices would be exposed and he should be penalized as per Rules.
Bye the way Dr. A.K. Saxena is not doing something strange, this practice is already exercised or exercising in various labs. Like Director, DEAL busy with replacing the good perfect tiles in all campus, RTI is there but no worries in face of Sh R C Agarwal. Same in CEPTAM when MES handover the building and very next day all tiles were removed and wood paneling started and all alteration were made without proper sanctions and literally wasted the poor tax payers money.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECSFirst Appellate Authority, DRDORTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: No.DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3rd September 2013
Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information Officer, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.
I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-
Name & Rank
Dr. Sangeeta Khare , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address
DEAL,Raipur Road, Dehradun-248001
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:
Decision vide letter No. DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3rd September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun was promoted wef 1st July 2012.
In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO.Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL “his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)
Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to ShSurendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
RTI request sent to DoPT and DoPT furnished partly information which is also mark as confidential, but after result it was a open document.(Copy Enclosed)
DoPT transferred my RTI request to Ministry of Defence for rest information vide their letter no F.No/29/38/2013-EOSM-II Dated 15th July 2013.
Subsequently MOD transferred to RTI Cell, DRDO vide Mof D ID No 21/(3)/2013(1083)/ D/(RTI) Dt 5/7/2013
Subsequently RTI Cell, DRDO transferred to CPIO,RAC, DRDO vide RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 10th July 2013
Subsequently CPIO,RAC, DRDO informed me vide letter no RAC/03/RTI/95/2013 Dated 1st August 2013 that my application sent back to RTI Cell, DRDO for further action. (Copy enclosed)
Unexpectedly I have received 6th September 2013 a letter from CPIO,DEAL, Dehardun stated that they received a letter from CPIO,RAC, DRDO on 20th August 2013 (no letter no reference) stated that the information (Biodata) of Sh R K Agarwal marked as confidential, hence it cannot be disclosed (copy enclosed)
As Sh R K Agarwal worked in DEAL in various projects and “only those project are classified as secret/confidential which have been sanction under staff project (ARMY/Air force/Navy/ Services Branch, the rest of the project sanctioned to DRDO comes under R&D Projects.
Sh R K Agarwal himself quote in DRDO News Letter (September 2012) that he was associated with Project “NARAD” his claim was totally false and supported by Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL for his promotion to Scientist ‘H’ and this act come under corruption. (“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”)
Corruption – Giving or obtainingadvantagethroughmeanswhich are illegitimate, immoral, and/or inconsistent with one’sdutyor therightsof others. Corruption oftenresultsfrom patronage)
viii. DRDO is protecting Sh R K Agarwal for his false claim and to stop this corrupt practice in DRDO, it is very well require exposing false claims especially in R&D atmosphere because these practices demoralize young scientists. As CPIO, DEAL already committed in one RTI reply no information and document evidence is available in DEAL regarding Sh R K Agarwal’s claim.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vide RTI Application dated 28th May 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DEAL,Dehradun. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO,DEAL, Dehradun to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 28th May 2013 (Copy Enclosed)
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(v) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only“. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act”.
2. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
3. Misuse & wrong interpretation of section 8(1) (j) by CPIO, DRDO HQ: – It appears that either CPIO did not apply his mind on content of information sought or he is supporting corrupt practices of Director, DEAL, Dehradun
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013(2) DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013(3) MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013(4) CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013(5) CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1st August 2013(6) CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013
To 28th May 2013
The Under Secretary (RR- II )
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Department of Personnel and Training
Room No. 268 – B , North Block
New Delhi- 110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun
As per SRO- 36 dated 9t May 2011( FileNo. DHRDn6205IDRDSlRRlClP/10/1022/D(R&D))
Para 2
“(iv) The Peer Committee as specified in Schedule ID shall assess suitability for appointment of Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist in Defence Research and Development Service”.
In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL “ his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)
Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)
Kindly provide the following informations under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005
The certified copy of Sh R K Agarwal’s credentials submitted to then Peer Committee by DRDO for consideration for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist).
The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II
“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”
Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 98E 528553
Regards,
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com , website- www.corruptionindrdo.comDoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013 CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1st August 2013CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,
Shri Suranjan Pal, OS & Director DECS
First Appellate Authority , DRDO
RTI Cell , Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Rajiv Chauhan
Address
1053/3, Shastri Nagar
Meerut(U.P.)- 250005
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 received by appellant on 20 September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 03 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 03 August 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010“.
(d) In point (3) of reply dated 09 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.
(e) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 03 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(f) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 03 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 03 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 03 August 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).
(h) It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter and public information, thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.
(i) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(Public/Information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of
RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) Information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter
(v) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(vi) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
2. Nature of information sought is not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters
Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 03 August 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ have violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as both did not submitted IPR , Movable property returns and valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against them under CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. These officers are having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property. Both officers used black money to purchase property at high cost but declared on low cost by paying excess amount in black money for purchase of property. The black money involved in purchase of property came to them by means of corruption. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption. Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is promoting this immoral act (corruption) based on casteism as Mr. Amit Kumar, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Dr. AK Saxena belongs to same cast Kayastha.
5. Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to IPR is Public Information as it is held by Public Authority under Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964. The details of IPR, Movable Property Return, Form 16 and Salary Slip are public documents. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).
6. The information related toImmovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Form 16 giving details of salary, house rent paid and rebate in income tax is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008 by Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner.
Information related to IPR is disclosable as per CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042 dated 06 October 2009 and CIC/SG/A/2011/003719/17410 dated 16 February 2012.
7. Information Sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
In reply dated 09 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
The said OM is having three(03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
The information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 and CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008.
Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
8. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18
Every Government servant shall submit a return of his immovable property, movable and valuable property under the provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 under sub rule 18(1), 18(2), 18(3, 18(4) and 18(5). Therefore IPR, Movable property return and details of valuable property are public documents held by public authority. To submit the information under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules in prescribed format under Rule 18 are binding on each & every Government servant, therefore these are public information not the personal information. Government servants are seeking House Building Advance (HBA) of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs for purchasing of Immovable property, Car Advance, Computer advance, two wheeler advance and other various advances (loans) from Government. Therefore procurement of Immovable property, movable property and valuable property involves the public money therefore these information and documents are public information. These public documents are disclosable as per DOPT orders and CIC decisions in various cases.
9. DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property
Please refer DOPT, Govt. of India Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 on the Subject “Submission of Immovable Property Returns by officers of Group A Central Services for the year 2010(as on 01.01.2011) – Placing of the public domain regarding”.
Under the provisions of Para (2) of the said OM “It has been decided that the immovable property returns submitted by members of all Group ‘A’ Services of the Central Government for the year 2010 i.e. as on 01.01.2011 will be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities by 31.05.2011“. Copy of the DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.
10. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain in DRDO
As per DOPT OM dated 11th April 2011, it was binding on all Public Authorities to disclose IPR of all its Group’A’ Officers in public domain by uploading IPR on website.
All organisations/departments uploaded IPR submitted by all Group A officers on their website as it is in the format prescribed under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. These IPR of all Central Government departments are as available on Internet.
DRDO is more clever than DOPT and other organisatins/departments thereby DRDO compiled the partial information in tabular form of All Group ‘A’ Officers working under DRDO.
These IPR was first time uploaded on DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return on home page of DRDO website in year 2011. Therefore DRDO accepted that information related to IPR is public information not the personal information. Despite disclosure of partial information related IPR on DRDO website , PIO, DMSRDE denied the information on the basis of personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This act of PIO is malafide with ulterior motives to protect the corrupt officers of his own cast based on basis of casteism.
PIO denied the information on illegal grounds to protect Dr. AK Saxena, Director, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar who are having disproportionate assets and are involved in corruption.
Appellant filed RTI Application on 03 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 13 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September2013. It is false to say that RTI was received after 10 days of dispatch. At the time when RTI dated 03 August 2013 was filed to DMSRDE, then on IPR of DMSRDE loaded on DRDO website was not having any property details of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ but after receiving RTI on 13th August, Public Authority (Director, DMSRDE) awaken and left his all the horses to manipulate the IPR data of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar and manage to put in record of DMSRDE by tempering and creating new data. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar on DRDO website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf.
This can be verified from DRDO website under the link of DMSRDE that two pdf files are existing with the names IPR_DMSRDE.pdf (uploaded in year 2011) and Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf(Uploaded on 16 August 2013). In earlier file there was no information about IPR of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar, but as soon as RTI was filed on 03 Aug 2013 and received by PIO on 13 Aug 2013, whole manipulation took place with in three days only and data was published by creating new file. This indicates how DRDO/DMSRDE is protecting its corrupt officials.
viii. Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.
11. Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity
As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar are having disproportionate assets. The money, by which they purchase the disproportionate assets, came to them by means of corruption. The exact details will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar purchased the property in undervalued rates by making cost of property very lower than original cost on which other property were sale in that area on that particular month. There by it create loss to Government in terms of low registry fee and stamps duty used for registry of the property.
These officers did not declare their assets as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby they violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. They are liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar is involved in corruption in DMSRDE and earned black money which they invested in purchase of Immovable Property and Movable Property. Activity pertains to corruption by these officers created pecuniary loss of public money and interest of Government as their integrity is doubtful in light of disproportionate assets with them.
As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
These officials are involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and these are not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of officials having fraudulent nature & activity, is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO. This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
viii. As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority“. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.
12. To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
PIO, DMSRDE is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by PIO for rejection of RTI application is illegal , prejudice and malafide.
13. Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not under gone any training programme on RTI, sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
Appellant would like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
The information sought by appellant regarding “Immovable Property Return (IPR) of officers” has to be provided to Parliament and can not be denied by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 of appellant, thereby the information sought should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.
14. Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (conducts) Rules.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar all are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
Dr. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have also been protected by them by illegal denial of information.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 09 September 2013
(2) RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
(3) DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
RTI Reply by DMSRDE
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE,
GT Road, Kanpur-208013
Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION
This is with reference to Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964 and information about Immovable Property Return (IPR) available on DRDO website (drdo.gov.in) and DOPT Notification for publishing IPR of each officer working in Establishment on organization website.Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Information/Question
. S No.
Information Sought
Required Reply
1.
Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information.
Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated.
Purchase value of property
Sources from which financed
Pl. provide details.
2.
Provide copies of the form submitted for giving prior intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(2) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all immovable properties acquired till 31 July , 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’
Pl. provide details.
3.
Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July,2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information.
Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account/shares/investments/Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc.
Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts)
Pl. provide details.
4.
Provide copies of the form for giving intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(3) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
Pl. provide details.
5.
Provide copies of final intimation in form 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rule 1964 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘D’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D’
Pl. provide details.
6
Provide copies of the letters duly noted from DOP, DRDO HQ in respect of all immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.
Pl. provide details.
7.
Reasons on the basis of which details of immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D are not reflected in Immovable Property Return (IPR) of DMSRDE, Kanpur on DRDO Website.
Pl. provide details.
8-
Provide copies of Form 16 for the Financial Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.Provide copies of salary slips for month June, 2013 & July, 2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D.
Pl. provide details.
9-
Copy of loan papers issued by private agency like Bank, LIC HFL etc on the basis of which rebate on HBA interest was claimed/allowed to Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
Pl. provide details.
.
This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisionsconsistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.Examples of decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.
The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act. An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee is enclosed
Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 200
Sir,
Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
The date on which Ex-Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur Dr. KU Bhasker Rao vacated/handed over the R&D House (Director’s Residence) to DMSRDE/MES, Kanpur.
Provide copy of vacation report of R&D House submitted by MES to Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE after vacation of accommodation by Dr. KU Bhasker Rao.
Provide copies of the original internal map/Engg. Drawing of R&D House
On the date when Dr. KU Bhasker Rao vacated the R&D House.
On the date when Dr. A.K. Saxena take over the possession of R&D House.
Whether any structural alterations/changes have been made in R&D House after vacation of R&D House by Ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao. (Yes/No)
If Yes, then provide the details of structural alterations/changes that have been made in R&D House after vacation by Dr. KUB Rao.
Total expenditure incurred in making structural alterations/changes and non-structural alterations/changes in building of R&D House by MES/DMSRDE after vacation of R&D House by Dr. KUB Rao in following format.
S.N.
Actual work carried out
Expenditure Amount
Nature of work (Major/Minor)
Structural/ Non-Structural
Sanctioning Authority
Provide inspection of
work carried out at R&D House(Director’s Residence), DMSRDE, Kanpur for making structural and non-structural alterations.
documents and records related to work carriedout for making structural/non-structural changes and major & minor work carried out at R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur after vacation of R&D House by Ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao.
under section 2(j) & 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 by informing suitable time & date prior to 15 days to applicant.
Provide the rules of DRDO or MES or any other Government rules under the provisions of which structural alteration/changes was made in R&D House (Director’s Residence), DMSRDE, Kanpur during the period between the date of vacation of R&D House by Dr. KUB Rao and the date of taking over R&D House by Dr. A.K. Saxena.
The name of Head, Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE during the period when structural alterations/changes were made in R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur in the year 2011-2012.
Whether any request was made by Dr. A. K. Saxena , Director to Head, Estate & Works Division or GE(R&D), MES for making structural alterations /changes in R& D House (Director’s Residence), DMSRDE.
Details of sanctioning authority who sanctioned major works and minor works for making structural alterations/changes in R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur with name, designation and authority by which sanctioned.
Provide the details of non-structural changes made in R&D House after the said accommodation was vacated by ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao and take over by Dr. A.K. Saxena.
Total expenditure incurred in making structural alterations/changes in R&D House in 2011-2012
Total expenditure incurred in making non-structural alterations/changes in R&D House in 2011-2012.
Whether non-structural changes were made on request of occupant of R&D House Dr. A.K. Saxena. (Yes/No)
If yes then provide the copy of letter of request by Dr. A.K. Saxena for making non-structural changes in R&D House.
Whether 10% of total expenditure on non-structural changes was taken from Dr. A.K. Saxena. (Yes/No)
If yes then how much amount was deposited by Dr. A.K. Saxena to DMSRDE/MES for the said work?
Whether any letter regarding offer of allotment for R&D House was issued to present Director Dr. A. K. Saxena as per Allotment of Government Residences (R&D Common Pool) Rules, 2003 as amended immediately after vacation of R&D House by Dr. KU Bhasker Rao. (Yes/No)
If yes then provide the copy of offer of Allotment issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE by Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE.
If no then provide the reasons/grounds on the basis of which Offer of Allotment was not issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena as per rules.
How long the R&D House was kept vacated under maintenance?
When did offer of Allotment was issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in the year 2012.
Provide copy of Offer of Allotment of R&D House issued to Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in the year 2012.
When Dr. AK Saxena did accepted the offer of allotment of R&D House?
Provide copy of acceptance letter given by Dr. A. K. Saxena to Estate & Works Division.
Provide copy of allotment letter issued by Estate & Works Division to Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for R&D House.
The revenue received per month by Government from allotment of R&D House including HRA, License Fee, Electrical Charges, Water Charges etc.
How long the R&D House was kept vacated/un-allotted? Provide exact dates & duration in months for which the said accommodation was not allotted to Dr. AK Saxena?
Amount of revenue loss to Government by keeping R&D House vacated.
This is to inform that information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.
An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549292) is enclosed as Annexure-1
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS,First Appellate Authority, DRDO RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name &Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE,GT Road,Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 25 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Book Procurement at Technical Library, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Copy of the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(d) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 25 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 25 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 25 July 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vide RTI Application dated 25 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 25 July 2013.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:- 1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(v) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
Subject/nature of information sought is related to procurement of books in Library. This information is pertaining to Estt. Matter and it has been decided by PIO, DMSRDE that the information sought is not exempted then PIO should provide complete information as sought in application dated 25 July 2013 but PIO did not provided complete information rather it appears that he concealed the information so that corruption in procurement of books could not be exposed.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter & procurement of books. Information related to purchase of books & periodicals has been allowed by CIC in various cases like case No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001219 dated 9.8.2012 Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 25 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is quite evident from the reply of PIO that corruption was made in procurement of books by misusing the DRDO Rules for Purchase.
In reply dated 26 Aug 2013 at point (4), PIO informed “Protected Govt. Documents” for Supply orders of books. Purchase related any document from indent to supply order & bills etc are not protected documents as claimed by PIO. As per various CIC decisions the purchase related files were allowed for inspection of records and all information related to purchase were allowed as purchase have angle of corruption. These were denied so that the corruption in procurement of books could not come out as it will discloses the discount percentage provided by suppliers in two different financial years. In fact in the FY 2010-2011 the maximum discount offered was 35% while in 2012-2013 the discount offered was 10%. This establish that 25% of total purchase i.e. Rs. 366952.00 was taken as commission by the concerned officers & authorities responsible for purchase of books on low discount.
COMPARISON OF PROCUREMENT OF BOOKS IN DMSRDE
SN
Year
Fund Exp.
Mode of procurement
Rules applied
Director
1.
2009-10
NIL
–
–
Dr KUB Rao
2.
2010-11
Rs. 94833
Limited
PM-2006
“
3.
2011-12
NIL
–
–
Dr AK Saxena
4.
2012-13
Rs. 1467810
No tendering, directly issue supply order
DRDO Lib. Manual,1999
Dr AK Saxena
By comparison of data provided by PIO in point(1) of his reply dated 26 August 2013 regarding fund expenditure in various financial years it is crystal clear that corruption took place in FY 2012-2013 where all of sudden books of Rs. 1467810.00 has been procured while in previous years it was “NIL” or very less Rs. 94833.00 only in 2010-11.
Data in above table indicates that demand of books which was NIL (Zero) in 2009-10 and 2011-12 has increased all of sudden near about to the Rupees 15 Lakh. As compared to purchase of books in FY 2010-11 the hike in 2012-13 is about 15.5 times. This indicates that books were purchased without any need and requirement in 2012-2013 and this amount huge loss to public money. Where the 25% discount on Rs. 1467810.00 i.e. Rs. 366952.00 has gone?
DRDO is having very old manual issued on 11 January 1999 regarding Management of Library/TIC of DRDO. This manual is called as “DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres“. After issuance of Purchase Manual -2006 of DRDO this old Manual became ineffective & obsolete. Most of the DRDO Labs/Estt. are using Purchase Manual for procurement of books, Print Journal and Online E-Journals. DMSRDE is also using PM-2006 from last six years for procurement of books, Print Journal and Online E-Journals as can be verified from records of Technical Library of DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of sudden making purchase of books on the basis of old manual smacks malafide intentions and leads corruption in purchase of books in FY 2012-2013. In fact in year 2012-2013 provisions of DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres has not been fully followed. Purchase procedure of DRDO Manual are for small & urgent procurement not for big procurements in tune of lakh or crores.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To, 25thJuly 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’CPIO, DMSRDEGT Road, Kanpur-208013
Hello,
Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
2009-2010 ii. 2010-2011 iii. 2012-2013
2009-2010 ii. 2010-2011 iii. 2012-2013
Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
If mode of tendering in any Financial Year from years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 was limited tender then provide the copies of CST(Comparative Statement of prices of books with discount % offered by suppliers) approved by Library Committee and Director for that particular year.
Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
Discount offered by various suppliers on procurement of Indian and Foreign books with name of suppliers and discount offered by them, when mode of tendering was Single Tender or Limited Tender.
Copies of bills submitted by suppliers for getting payment against supply of books in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
This is relevant to mentioned here that the information sought is related to establishment matters (Purchase) and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act.
Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
However the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,
Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013 issued by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ, New Delhi. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-
Name & Rank
Dr. A.K. Tyagi , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address
DRDO HQ
314-A, ‘B’ Block, DRDO Bhawan
New Delhi-110011
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 18 July 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi for providing information regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) under GSQR-1318. Copy of the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ, New Delhi rejected the application u/s 24(1) & 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi rejected the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of the Public Authority, DRDO HQ. This act of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(d) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 18 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi for providing information as mentioned in application dated 18 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi on the ground of section 24(1) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 18 July 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) CPIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vide RTI Application dated 18 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:- 1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(v) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only“. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act”.
2. Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters
Various GSQRs, their detail specifications, cost of BPJ, requirement of Army for BPJ, Tenders for procurements of BPJ & their purchase details are already in public domain by means of Parliamentary Reports, Parliamentary Questions, Print & Electronic media, various reports from MOD etc. Hence information sought is not confidential/secret.
Besides these the information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 18 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.
5. Misuse & wrong interpretation of section 8(1) (j) by CPIO, DRDO HQ: – It appears that either CPIO did not apply his mind on content of information sought or he is supporting corrupt practices of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Information sought in point (1) is regarding copy of the complaint of financial irregularities by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. This information (copy of complaint) is public document held by DRDO HQ when it has been received by the Public Authority of DRDO and not personal information of complainant. Therefore this information does not fall under the provision of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.
Information sought in point (2) is not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
Information sought in point (3) is also not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
It is very surprised that CPIO is claiming that date of enquiry is personal information. In fact date of enquiry is not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
Information sought at point (5) is related to tour programme and tour details of Dr. K. Muraleedharan, Sc’G’, DOM from New Delhi to Kanpur. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act as pronounced in various decisions of CIC. For ready reference of FAA, appellant would like to mention some decisions of CIC regarding tour programme, travel expenses etc of a public servant.
Case No. 07/IC (A)/CIC/2006 dated 6.3.2006, Dinesh Berry Vs BPCL. Decision pronounced as “The information sought by the appellant relate to the tour programme and travel expenses of a public servant, which can not be treated as personal information“
Case No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000952 dated 13 April 2010, Shri Janardhana Rao Vs UCO Bank. Decision pronounced as “Copy of the tour programme and copy of TA bills are not personal information“.
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000996/SS dated 13.3.2012, U.P. Kamal Vs Coal Mine PF. Decision pronounced as “Official tours undertaken under the budgetary resources of the public authority can not be considered personal information“.
Information sought at point (6) is related to Estt. Matter and not exempted u/s 24(1). Besides this the enquiry report is not a personal document or personal information as enquiry has been conducted by public servant and source of financial expenditure incurred in conducting an enquiry is public money. Hence information sought does not attract section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.
Appellant is surprised from the action of CPIO by replying in Hindi language however RTI Application was written in English. CPIO is not aware of CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001234 dated 06.02.2013 Sita Ram Vs DOPT and CIC/WB/A/2006/00117 dated 13 June 2006 JK Jain Vs DDA in which it has been decided that “Reply should be provided in the same language in which the application has been made as long as it is a local or national language”. Therefore FAA, DRDO is kindly requested to issue instructions to CPIO to follow the CIC decisions regarding reply of RTI application in English to be replied in English only.
7. To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
CPIO, DRDO HQ is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
CPIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). CPIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by CPIO for rejection of RTI application is illegal , prejudice and malafide.
8. Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
Appellant would also like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO on the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
The information sought by appellant regarding “Enquiry of financial irregularities in development of BPJ-1318” has to be provided to Parliament by DRDO, thereby the information sought should be provided to appellant.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To 18thJuly 2013Dr. A. K. TyagiScientist ‘F’ and Head RTI CellCentral Public Information Officer (CPIO)DRDO HQ, Room No. 314-A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Provide copy of the complaint filed regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318.
Whether any enquiry was conducted by DRDO HQ on this complaint. (Yes/No)
The name & designation of officer who conducted the enquiry at DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Provide the date on which enquiry was conducted.
Provide copies of movement orders in respect to Dr. K Muraleedharan Scientist ‘G’, Director of Materials (DOM) to visit DMSRDE, Kanpur during 01 January 2013 to 30 June 2013.
Provide copy of enquiry report/findings of the Enquiry Officer after enquiry was completed.
Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II
It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request is directly related with corruption.
I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS, First Appellate Authority, DRDO RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 18 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) – 1318. Copy of the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(d) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 18 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 18 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 18 July 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vide RTI Application dated 18 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:- 1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of
RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(v) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only“. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act”.
2. Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters
Various GSQRs, their detail specifications, cost of BPJ, requirement of Army for BPJ, Tenders for procurements of BPJ & their purchase details are already in public domain by means of Parliamentary Reports, Parliamentary Questions, Print & Electronic media, various reports from MOD etc. Hence information sought is not confidential/secret.
Besides these the information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Purchase & procurement/Routine correspondence and permissible/allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO. 4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 18 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To, Date 18thJuly 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’Public Information Officer (PIO)DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Hello,
This is with reference to News published in print/electronic media in May 2012 and DRDO Newsletter Issue of April 2012 regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1318) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
The date on which GSQR-1318 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
The date on which DMSRDE started to work on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318 and the date on which BPJ-1318 developed successfully.
PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1318.
Whether any team was constituted for development of BPJ-1318? If yes then provide name of the team members (Scientists, Technical Officers and Scientific Assistants etc) who worked on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1318?
If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
If no Project was sanctioned from DRDO HQ for BPJ as per GSQR-1318 then from which head (Build-up etc) funds were arranged for Development and Fabrication of BPJ-1318?
Provide total expenditure incurred in procurement of items for development of BPJ-1318 including expenditure incurred on TA/DA to Officers & Employees, Government Transport and hired transport separately.
Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase/services hired for development of BPJ-1318.
Purchase of materials, items and services hired for fabrication of BPJ-1318 were made under which type of tendering process (Single Tender /Limited Tender/Open Tender/Global Tender)?\
Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1318 in following format
Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1318.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1318.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund on Govt. Transport and hired transport for transporting the materials up to the site of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd at New Delhi/Palwal.
Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1318.
Whether SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd is registered with DMSRDE. If yes then provide copy of Registration Certificate issued by DMSRDE to S. M. Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd.
Whether any patent has been filed for development of BPJ-1318? if yes then provide the copy of patent filed including the name of inventors.
Whether facilities for fabrication of BPJ are available in Kanpur (Yes/No).
M/s M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur is also working on development/fabrication of BPJ at Kanpur. Provide the reasons on the ground of which DMSRDE did not utilized services of M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur for development of BPJ-1318 using Limited Tendering Process?
Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1318.
Whether these BPJ-1318 were tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.
How many BPJ-1318 was fabricated by SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd and total amount paid to SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd for the fabrication of said BPJ-1318?
Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1318. (Yes/No)
AHQ (Army) accepted BPJ-1318 (Yes/No).
Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II
It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request is directly related with corruption. Find the application fee for the request attached with this application
I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application. Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 12F 470723
To, 25th July 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’CPIO, DMSRDEGT Road, Kanpur-208013
Hello,
Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
2009-2010 ii. 2010-2011 iii. 2012-2013
2009-2010 ii. 2010-2011 iii. 2012-2013
Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
If mode of tendering in any Financial Year from years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 was limited tender then provide the copies of CST(Comparative Statement of prices of books with discount % offered by suppliers) approved by Library Committee and Director for that particular year.
Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
Discount offered by various suppliers on procurement of Indian and Foreign books with name of suppliers and discount offered by them, when mode of tendering was Single Tender or Limited Tender.
Copies of bills submitted by suppliers for getting payment against supply of books in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
This is relevant to mentioned here that the information sought is related to establishment matters (Purchase) and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act.
Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
However the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.
To, 17th July 2013Shri Sarvesh KumarScientist ‘F’ & Public Information Officer (PIO)DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Hello,
This is with reference to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Report 2009-10 and 2010-11, News published in print/electronic media in May 2012 and DRDO Newsletter Issue of April 2012 regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1318) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
How many GSQRs (General Staff Qualitative Requirement) for development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) have been issued to DMSRDE, Kanpur (DRDO) by AHQ (Army) till date?
Provide all GSQR numbers given by AHQ for development of BPJ to DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Provide the copies of sanctioning letter issued from AHQ to DRDO for these GSQRs for development of BPJ by DMSRDE.
Provide total expenditure incurred in development of Bullet Proof Jacket in DMSRDE right from sanctioning of first GSQR for BPJ up to present(current) GSQR for BPJ in following format:
(i) GSQR No.
(ii) Date of sanction
(iii) Date of closure/completion
(iv) Expenditure incurred
How much amount has been expenditured in DMSRDE in creation & setup of the facilities and infrastructure development for R&D of BPJ under these GSQRs given by AHQ to DMSRDE till date?
Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II
It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request is directly related with corruption.
I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.
Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 98E 528555
Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, RaipurDehradun-248008Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website – www.corruptionindrdo.comDRDO NEWS LETTER A monthly house bulletin of Defence Research & Development Organisation ■ Vol. 32 No. 4 ■ April 2012Dr AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, demonstrated the jacket to Dr VK Saraswat, SA to RM
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
